Jump to content
Sonic

Post-Mortem: Tiberium Wars Article

Recommended Posts

Planet CNC have a new article called Post-Mortem: Tiberium Wars. With Command & Conquer 4 one of possibilities for the next game from EALA, this article takes a close and detailed look at Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, its theme, storyline and art style. Before you read through take note that its extremely critical and very picky. Here's a sample.

 

In effect, some of EALA's attempts to increase the threat of Tiberium – such as detailing the gruesome crystallisation process – have backfired, in some cases actually reducing the threat it poses. Tiberium used to not just kill you, but mutate you into a grotesque citizen of an alien Earth... an Earth without humanity.

 

Veinhole Monsters and the vivid orange weeds they sprouted were particularly brilliant. Their slowly spreading "tentacles" consumed heavy vehicles and showed that the tiberian ecosystem can destroy whatever humanity can build- hiding in heavy vehicles will not save us. These creatures also had very real gameplay implications - they were useful to Nod, but a double hindrance to GDI, who would suffer the loss of their heavier units and fear the wrath of Nod's chemical missile. Fauna and flora can enhance the gameplay, opening up new strategies. Of course, in the interest of competitive multiplayer there could be an option to disable all veinholes and lifeforms. There is, however, no reason why these mutations could not feature heavily throughout the campaign.

 

Ion Storms were also a major part of Tiberian Sun. They have disappeared almost entirely from Tiberium Wars, only ever seen being locally generated by Scrin units. Even then, they are drastically different to their Tiberian Sun counterparts. The yellow glow they produced has been replaced - for no apparent reason - by a blue glow, and they do not ground hover units, crash aircraft or disable radar coverage. It would be nice to see Ion Storms return as "global" events in C&C4, affecting the entire map. They could add an extra dimension to the gameplay - certain multiplayer maps would suffer from Ion Storms, forcing you to decide whether you want to spend money on risky strategies.

Check out the rest of this article by clicking here.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe someone at EALA will really consider these complaints. They owe it to their loyal fans.

 

I have to say the only thing in this article I don't fully support is using the Intel Database to correct continuity errors. Yes I believe it should be used in this manner, but it should not be an easy cop-out for having in-game explanations.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm mostly agree with this article.

Share this post


Link to post

i basically agree with that entire article. what we were all forced to do as a community, though, was to let EALA stuff whatever they made of the universe down our throats and accept TW. even if there is a C&C4, isn't it too late to undo the damage?

Share this post


Link to post
even if there is a C&C4, isn't it too late to undo the damage?

No, but I don't think they're smart enough to do what needs to be done to fix things.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a very good article. I agree with everything!

I'm not that picky about the in-game models though, it's the canon breakage that really tears me up inside!

It has been broken and it is impossible to glue it back together.

But that's OK! I have accepted it.

I realize we will never get "the rest" of the story as it was supposed to be, and I cry about this when I go to sleep sometimes.

EA will continue the franchise as long as they can earn money from it, and we will probably never get a proper ending. I would have preferred it if Westwood would have been given the time to complete C&C3 and that they would have ended the whole franchise with it.

Share this post


Link to post

This article is exactly how I feel. I also feel like the C&C story is lost.

Tiberian Sun was a legendary game. C&C 3 was not.

Share this post


Link to post
I have to say the only thing in this article I don't fully support is using the Intel Database to correct continuity errors. Yes I believe it should be used in this manner, but it should not be an easy cop-out for having in-game explanations.

The thing is though, they didn't give any explanation for many of their changes at all. I'd rather have some text in the Intel DB as opposed to no explanation period, but I agree that these deep changes need a more thorough explanation.

 

I mean honestly, how lazy do they have to be to not even come up with a few lines of text? (or how much do they not care) I've seen many excellent possibilities that the community has come up with in less than 10 minutes for why Tiberium changed. Maybe it was because humans were experimenting with techniques from Tacitus data to reverse it and did this accidentally, maybe something in Earth's environment caused it, maybe Nod or CABAL did it on purpose, or maybe it was always pre-programmed in the pod's DNA that it would change after a certain period of time or certain mineral concentration.

Share this post


Link to post

well thats where i was on the fence with the article. id rather they didnt change the core elements of the universe..

Share this post


Link to post
This is a very good article. I agree with everything!

I'm not that picky about the in-game models though, it's the canon breakage that really tears me up inside!

It has been broken and it is impossible to glue it back together.

But that's OK! I have accepted it.

I realize we will never get "the rest" of the story as it was supposed to be, and I cry about this when I go to sleep sometimes.

EA will continue the franchise as long as they can earn money from it, and we will probably never get a proper ending. I would have preferred it if Westwood would have been given the time to complete C&C3 and that they would have ended the whole franchise with it.

 

Even Westwood never planed to end Tiberian franchise with C&C3. I can't remember exactly who, but I know for sure that Bret Sperry or Adam Isgreen once said that they planed at least five sequels. They just wasn't sure which sequel is going to be Tiberian Twilight, third or last (fifth or sixth).

Share this post


Link to post
Even Westwood never planed to end Tiberian franchise with C&C3. I can't remember exactly who, but I know for sure that Bret Sperry or Adam Isgreen once said that they planed at least five sequels. They just wasn't sure which sequel is going to be Tiberian Twilight, third or last (fifth or sixth).

 

I think its Twilight with 2 of its expansions featuring the Forgotten and CABAL faction per expansion, not 5 sequels in total.

Share this post


Link to post

EA shouldn't rush with new C&C game, because during last 2 years, 4 C&C games have come. And I hope that EA makes Generals 2 before the next game to Tiberium universe, unless it's new FPS :D

Share this post


Link to post

Pretty much totally agreed with the article. I think the main reason i cannot even play C&C 3 is simply because the story and canon have totally been shreaded and ripped to pieces...I feel bad seeing the once great C&C franchise being used as money cow now. But i suppose ill jump on the faith bandwagon and hope that EALA will learn and correct their obvious mistakes with C&C 3

Share this post


Link to post
id rather they didnt change the core elements of the universe..

Haha, well yeah I would prefer that too but it is a little late now so I'd like an explanation instead of none. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I have to agree with the post given, as a Westwood traditionalist, I also have to agree on many of their points. Let's add something up from each of the chapters written (To those who doesn't want to read my long post, then you may skip it) :

 

Intro : I can agree more, it is a good multiplayer game, but a terrible sequel. That's not how Westwood deliver it (If the original company is still alive without being bought by EA, NOT Petroglyph).

 

Part 1 : I find the environments was pretty bad when C&C3 came in like that. Just like even begged for several things to come in.

 

a) The return of the flora & fauna, veinhole monster, more dangerous visceroids, fiends & floaters. One of the developers saying to get rid of the veinhole monster is a very very bad mistake, it's not the matter of using it as a resource, but use it as an obstacle. Just like Starcraft 2 made some destructible rocks as an obstacle.

b ) Ion Storm to be a major problem during gameplay (Yeap, using the classic TS type of Ion Storm), not some ability activated by the Scrin.

c) Tiberium blossom trees, NOT fissures, that is NOT originally happened in the Tiberian universe, the trees does.

d) Tiberium is meant to spread like a disease if left untreated, NOT some resource which only want to get close to its producer (The fissure). Classic TS, I always see Tiberium nearly spread everywhere when they're not harvested.

 

In summary, EA didn't follow into Westwood's footstep well enough if they didn't fire our original C&C producers & founders. Without them, C&C is no longer a very good franchise and it's beginning to lose its image, just like how I began to lose interest in it. Yuri's Revenge was the last game that kept my interest flowing including mod downloads, but when EA made Generals & further, I lost a lot of interests in the franchise and could not recover the way it was supposed to be. :( Back on topic, with the loss of these key objects, the environment especially the Red Zones are NOT look like it was supposed to be, it should be a heavily infested area, not some empty arena with the glassier being the only thing that supports the theory. I got the feeling not even Kane's Wrath can cover most of the gaps, only 70% are covered.

 

Part 2 : The FMV isn't as close like it was supposed to be done back in the old Westwood days. The seriousness is missing while I find Joe Kucan retain the original ways. He was the best when he was the original director of the FMVs before Richard Taylor took over, which I find it not amusing despite he's doing the best as he could. Even the CGI looks better than it was, in Tiberian Sun, it was all classic to see Nod raising the flag, devil's tongue crush on an infantry & seeing Hover MLRS destroy some Nod escorts on a bridge, etc.. Those CGIs are there in Red Alert 3, BUT it wasn't enough as they all have been completely wasted just for the first Allied mission (Tons of CGI used on one single mission = EPIC total waste & failure), C&C was meant to have tons of CGI during every mission ending & starting (Back in TD & RA1). As for RA3, one of the examples, it could have been improved if like the first Soviet mission, Cherdenko's TV screen should have replaced with another CGI of the Empire attack, NOT some recycle use of the CGI that was used for the RA3 HM3 intro.

 

In summary, the acting is fine when RA3 was issued, but I find the environment was not good as I don't feel the old Westwood environment. Only the concept video which shows General Hask & Commander Giles ARE the Westwood feel. The RA3 intro is ok, but as for the ending videos, especially the Allied one, there should be like Tanya captured the Premier & Krukov, the old cheesy feeling is nice back in RA2, but RA3 isn't. All that news screen was somewhat I find it boring when used excessively. I prefer more serious acting than news acting.

 

Part 3 : Woo, Kodaemon even gave me a good point, EA should not have done it their way, they should completely 100% follow Westwood's ways. And most of all, their expansions should NOT be outsourced to other developers, it only make matters worse rather than improving. Saving money is one thing, but that will also risk the interest of C&C fans. Like me for example, my interest on the franchise was threatened when the seriousness are down the drain and the number of CGIs are dropping or wasted. Generals was the worst hit that ever hurt me a lot and I can never forgive the mistake which EA had done it.

 

Speaking of the unit designs, true, although I'm totally ok with the units. But I criticize the most is RA3, especially I hate the Hammer Tank, the Soviets are meant to be serious, NOT some wacky faction. The Hammer Tank's model to me it looks lightly armored, the Rhino is even better. Until I read in some articles that the Guardian packs more punch than the Hammer, which is absolutely wrong, the Soviets should be the brute force. Also, definitely NOT the bear, I prefer Westwood's Soviet, use the Attack Dog instead, please! And even the controversial Apoc tank, the missile launcher is more original than the magnetic harpoon, a painful sacrifice for the sake of balanced gameplay. But I still find the Apoc tank doesn't look serious, especially the 1st concept art was so terrible that I nearly throw up when I thought that was the RA1 Heavy Tank, RA2's Apoc tank was better & scarier. RA3's, bleh, nothing special.

 

Back to the Tiberium universe, I agree with many points but I have a hard time to sum it up. Overall, the only thing that stands out well is just the Mammoth Tank. To me like stephan even said, I also don't like the Predator, too cheeky visually, the Scorpion was the only winning unit to stand out well as a good looking T1 tank.

 

Aww, saying EALA's game and can do whatever they want? Sounds rude, but we are the ones that does the criticizing. If that doesn't look so good, the interest on gamers will fade badly and EA's reputation will be affected badly as well. If Westwood is around or their original C&C founders were not fired or resigned, then the game would NOT have fallen into the pool of failure. So far, I agree with Gobias' final summary in that article.

 

------------

 

That's done, so far, I hope to see EA to go back to Westwood's footsteps & to clear the many gaps & mistakes they have done when they're working for the next C&C game, all this criticism maybe one thing, but I'm also looking forward on their boxarts too. ENOUGH with those lazy copy & paste (Sorry, APOC, not all of us can accept that excuse you said which is not copy & paste), BRING BACK THE classic iconic "SOLDIER'S HEAD" already! Do treat the boxart as a SEPARATE artwork, don't treat it lightly and then use your concept arts to copy & paste just to create it as a so called "boxart", Westwood DON'T do that during their days. RA3 Uprising maybe your last to use that typical copy & paste, but I'm (And may not be the only C&C fan) expecting you to use back the Soldier's Head for the next C&C game. And DON'T take the RA3 Premier Edition boxart as your example, that is NOT the soldier's head icon we know, that is still concept art cropped to fit as a boxart, WRONG! We can see and know the difference. You want to follow Westwood or not?! What you're doing right now is NOT following Westwood at 100% (Only partial like 40%), if you bought the franchise, you MUST 100% follow the Westwood way, NOT your way!

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post

Disclaimer: I'm not anti-EA or a WW/Petro zealot, just a C&C fan.

 

Overall, I love this article. This article pretty much sums up my feelings of C&C3 as well as majority of the community's feelings about C&C3. I love the great multiplayer in C&C3, but in terms of single player storyline, somehow C&C3 seems kind of out of place as compared to the original 2 prequels, in terms of the environment (bye bye TS's environment, old tiberium and the mutaion effects), storyline (boring GDI campaigns and terrible FMV directing and writing, and second that to jennifer morrison's nightmarish acting), designs (as the article has stated), the naming of the title (Tiberium Wars? wth?) and the discontinuation of the generic soldier's face boxart (boxart is important, don't you think?). I like to take C&C3 as a spin-off/parallel universe alternative. I was aware back in the good old days the community was literally crazy with all the C&C3 updates and criticisms. What I couldn't understand (even after playing C&C3 and KW) is the epic changes of tiberium and its effects. Somehow, the new tiberium feels more like a major "inspiration" from Superman/Smallville's kryptonite.

 

As a sidenote, the release of the first C&C novel based on C&C3 was terribly wrong. Other than the same old generic discrepancies (Dr Mobius on GDSS?), the worse hit was the nicknames given to the tiberium crystals.

Edited by Malevolence

Share this post


Link to post

Well, to respect, Malevolence, I maybe a little anti-EA, but I have to respect them a little bit. If I were pure anti-EA, I'll troll and suddenly get banned after that. But anyway, I'm just like 60% anti-EA, not 100%. 100% is already pure trolling.

 

Anyway, I agree, with multiplayer on the line, it's ok, but there are fans still prefer to play solo, but with the storyline not doing so well, including the gameplay, things are not in good shape. For the storyline, I'm criticizing what EA is doing, although I'm ok with Uprising, but I did tell them NOT to combine some elements from other factions and merge them together. For example, Emperor Yoshiro should have been alive in Uprising instead of dead (After all, Uprising continues after the Allied campaign and Yoshiro was not killed in the Allied campaign itself, the separate Soviet campaign does), Westwood will never do that if they have a 3 faction game. But I'm also concerned on the way they lead the missions, C&C3 was purely out of sync as though GDI & Nod are connected, so WRONG! TS was the best, moreover, the Theater of War is wrong too, they should have done it like TS did, but TW's was a linear game, nothing special. Like for example, taking out the supply base in an optional mission will make your main mission easier, but TW did not apply that, that's just plain dull! And NOT so Westwoody.

 

Moreover, the name of the game, Tiberium Wars? To me, that's just NOT creative when I saw the game for the first time, Tiberian Twilight IS the creative title. Logo wise, the old C&C3 is good, but the letters are not, but when the designers changed it, the wordings are improved, BUT the number 3 isn't. That's why it's best that how it looks like as explained in here....

 

th.e144d67f51.jpg

 

For the boxart, the old one has always been the best and it's already a key signature to us, Soldier's Head FTW. Imagine let's say Blizzard change their boxarts for WC4 and follow EA's style, do you think WC fans will like it? I'm afraid not, original design is always the best (In this case, WC used "Soldier's Head" icon too).

 

On another topic, EA claimed that Uprising will have bigger Hollywood cast, but guess what? Only a few new ones while many of the old ones disappear. That's just pathetic, I thought bigger cast means the old actors will return too, such as Cherdenko, Krukov, Yoshiro, Suki, etc.. Westwood did not do something like that, except for Firestorm & YR which I remember, they took out Oxanna & Vladimir. Yuri's Revenge was the best expansion, all original cast from RA2 is back without a single one missing (Well, except Vladimir).

Edited by Sonic

Share this post


Link to post
On another topic, EA claimed that Uprising will have bigger Hollywood cast, but guess what? Only a few new ones while many of the old ones disappear. That's just pathetic, I thought bigger cast means the old actors will return too, such as Cherdenko, Krukov, Yoshiro, Suki, etc.. Westwood did not do something like that, except for Firestorm & YR which I remember, they took out Oxanna & Vladimir. Yuri's Revenge was the best expansion, all original cast from RA2 is back without a single one missing (Well, except Vladimir).

 

As for the issue about actors and Hollywood cast/models, I personally feel that any random guy can be hired as one of the characters in the C&C game as long as he/she can deliver the scene well along with good speeches and more actions. I always see hiring Hollywood actors or models as a bonus, not a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post

Me too, I feel well known celebrities are not necessarily needed, Westwood didn't need all that during the past, but if they want it in the present time, they'll ask us first or unless we ask for it first. We have an article last time (I'm not sure was it from IGN or Gamespot) which involves "Westwood & EA" VS "Blizzard". The choice between :

 

1. Hiring well known actors

2. Bring back old characters

 

But guess what? Blizzard won that choice because of old characters. I totally agree, I prefer old characters to come back, although one of them died like the actor who played Premier Romanov & the now impossible to find Anton Slavik, but this problem only cost its interest to drop a little bit. Like the upcoming Starcraft 2, Blizzard brings back key characters, but if EA would make that game instead, they'll put in new characters and discard the old ones. Typical style which I know they'll do that.

 

In the concept video I watched, personally I find General Hask is much better for RA3 than Robert Bingham. Hask may not be the new General Carville, but his office layout does look like one. Moreover, his acting is a little bit like Carville which if I were the director, I will keep him, so Bingham isn't a good choice for me.

 

And another issue, no wonder why RA3 was so expensive in stores, it's all the celebrities EA hired and the expenses they paid for are all placed into the retail cost, which is not a good idea but typical like all retail businesses do, I studied commerce before and I know how their businesses run. So far, I wish they should focus on characters & their acting, celebrities are not necessarily needed. For the upcoming John Cena wants to get in the shot since Ric Flair took it once, he is exceptional.

 

I'm not sure about the Generals & Tiberium universes, but if I would to make Red Alert 4, I prefer Dasha, Eva McKenna, blonde Tanya, Prince Tatsu, etc.. to come back, NO NEW CHARACTERS! New characters will only create gap problems and they're possibly hard to solve (Unless if the actor dies, such as Premier Romanov), just like Anton Slavik, with him not appearing in C&C3, it caused questions and mysteries among us. Kane's Wrath may had covered him, but what about Yuri? HE MUST RETURN, or else the mystery will go on and on. It doesn't matter if the space-time continuum has been altered, Yuri must come back, after all, he is not completely wiped out from history.

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post

You do know in the Red Alert universe, it is rare to see the return of characters except for variants of Tanya. Still think our RA2 Tanya a.k.a. Kari Wuhrer FTW.

 

Anyways, as for the Tiberian universe, we will always see the same ol' Kane, and possibly CABAL, but the rest of the characters will have to be new, if old characters return they must have the aging makeup to them.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Tanya is well, Tanya, she'll return. As for other characters, despite that FMV characters are hard to return, I wish they could so the canon can stay still. CGI characters like those from WC & SC are easy to come back as they're, well, CGI. And I know actors are hard to come back, but let EA do the best as they can. And probably finding Udo Kier is going to be a hard one. :o

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree with the article!

 

Other changes I disaprove of:

 

*New logos. Well the GDI logo changed between TD and TS but was it really necessary to change it again for TW? It's just stupid.

*GDI is orange ingame not gold, gold ain't even included as a color in the game (there is yellow for scirmish/MP though).

*Very few options for scirmish/MP. Most annoying is that you can't turn off SW:s but there's a lot of options tahat should have been there, like mutations, Ion Storms etc...

 

Edit:

What?! It's exactly two years now since I registred on this site! Damn time goes fast!

Edited by Trukem

Share this post


Link to post
Pretty much totally agreed with the article. I think the main reason i cannot even play C&C 3 is simply because the story and canon have totally been shreaded and ripped to pieces...I feel bad seeing the once great C&C franchise being used as money cow now. But i suppose ill jump on the faith bandwagon and hope that EALA will learn and correct their obvious mistakes with C&C 3

Well hopefully since all of their major mistakes have now been written out in detail, maybe they will consider correcting a few things.

Share this post


Link to post

They got to, Wampa, or else our interest will not turn out well. After all, they can't just gamble our interest for the sake of earning money. The more they think about money, the more we'll begin to walk away from the franchise by getting closer to the "Exit" doorway.

Share this post


Link to post
they can't just gamble our interest for the sake of earning money.

Sure they can. They have been for as long as I can remember. Perhaps they do this because we are loyal... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×